To comply with European Union law, we are required to inform users accessing "overunity.com" from within the
EU about the cookies that this site uses and the information they contain and also provide them with the means
to "opt-in" - in other words, permit the site to set cookies.
Cookies are small files that are stored by your browser and all browsers have an option whereby you can inspect
the content of these files and delete them if you wish.

The following table details the name of each cookie, where it comes from and what we know about the information
that cookie stores:

Cookie

Origin

Persistency

Information and Usage

ecl_auth

overunity.com

Expires after 30 days

This cookie contains the text "EU Cookie Law - LiPF cookies authorised".
Without this cookie, the Forums' software is prevented from setting other cookies.

SMFCookie648

overunity.com

Expires according to user-chosen session duration

If you log-in as a member of this site, this cookie contains your user name, an encrypted hash of
your password and the time you logged-in. It is used by the site software to ensure that features such as indicating
new Forum and Private messages are indicated to you. This cookie is essential for the site software to work correctly.

PHPSESSID

overunity.com

Current session only

This cookie contains a unique Session Identification value. It is set for both members and
non-members (guests) and it is essential for the site software to work correctly. This cookie is not persistent
and should be automatically removed when you close the browser window.

pmx_upshr{NAME}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records your display preferences for the site's Portal page if a panel
or individual block is collapsed or expanded

pmx_pgidx_blk{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the page number for the site's Portal page if the page for a
individual block is changed.

pmx_cbtstat{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the expand/collapse state for a CBT Navigator block content.

pmx_poll{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the id for the current poll in a multiple Poll block.

pmx_{fadername}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the state for a Opac-Fader block.

pmx_LSBsub{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current category and the state for a static Category block.

pmx_shout{ID}

overunity.com

Current session only

These cookies are set to records the current state of a Shout box block.

pmx_php_ckeck

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set, if a Syntax check on a PHP block is initiated
and will be deleted if the function executed.

pmx_YOfs

overunity.com

Page load time

This cookie will probably never see you. It is set on portal actions like click on a page number.
The cookie is evaluated on load the desired page and then deleted. It is used to restore the vertical screen position
as before the click.

Notes:

1

We are aware that Google uses additional cookies it stores on your PC and when you browse our site and all other
sites. These are used to target advertising and Google currently does this without seeking your permission. Four of
these cookies we know about are named "rememberme", "NID", "PREF" and "PP_TOS_ACK"
and are stored in Google's cache on your computer.

2

If you are accessing this site using someone else's computer, please ask the owner's permission before
accepting cookies.

3

Your browser provides you with the ability to inspect all cookies stored on your PC. In addition your browser
is responsible for removing "current session only" cookies and those that have expired; if your browser is
not doing this, you should report the matter to your browser's authors.

4

We regret and apologies for any inconvenience this causes to members and guests who are accessing our web site
from outside the European Union. It is not currently possible for us to interrogate your browser and obtain geographic
location information in order to decide whether or not to prompt you to accept cookies.

For further and fuller information about cookies and their use, please visit
All About Cookies

Author
Topic: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity (Read 76235 times)

Hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this point;"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed"The reason being is that the slower something moves, the more force it can impart. Also, the greater the distance it travels between 2 points gives it a greater potential. An example of this last part is if point A is 9.8 meters above point B. Either way, via the straight line or if travelling with a radius of 9.8 meters, they are considered to have identical velocities at point B minus resistence. How ever, with aradius of 9.8 meters, the velocity of m*9.8m/s/s/9.8*3.14 is greater tha work = mass times distance travelled.By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially. As such, the greater the radius of a weights downward path,the greatness in the amount of work it can perform increases like wise.

Jim

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles. You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time.

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you. I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it. If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false. Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay. From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface. Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on. This is exponential. But you're confusing two different things. It's similar to the "difference" between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth). It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity. A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies. A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter. How is this exponential? It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so. Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter.

Have you ever heard of a block and tackle? It can also be used in reverse, where a weight dropping 1 meter can lift another weight 4 meters. The same concept also applies to gears, where a movement of 1 inch on the input will produce a movement of 4 inches on the output or vice versa. What is taught or passed down to us doesn't necessarily mean it is correct. You have a mind of your own, so use it instead of having other people do your thinking for you. This is only a suggestion.

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles. You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time.

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you. I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it. If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false. Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay. From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface. Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on. This is exponential. But you're confusing two different things. It's similar to the "difference" between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth). It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity. A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies. A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter. How is this exponential? It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so. Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

Gravock

Gravock, Hope you don't mind but I would prefer to stick with mechanical engineering To that end, tomorrow I'll see about rebuilding it. I'll be able to have a better go of it this time. I'll be using 4 - 1 lb. weights with a diameter of about 2 inches. The wheel will be about 30 inchesin diameter. I'll probably try for about 4 - 6 inches of over balance with a block that can be added to reduce the amount of over balance. This would allow for comparison to acceleration with maximum over balance and with less over balance, and how quickly the weights change their balance in the wheel (move to the inner or outer position). I think this might help everyone to understand why I have some of the opinions that I do. I'll try to have it done by Wednesday with some videos up on youtube.

Gravock et al, Have decided to wait until after surgery next week to build. Don't want to get started and then stop.Did find out today I am not the only person who is doing wood working where I have my shop at. I like this as I'll feel a lot more comfortable and will build new work benches Also will buy somemore tools to work with. This will help me to get better results when I want to build a prototype. And for something like what I have mentioned, it will be a much better demonstration as the buildwill be to better tolerances. And when discussing how the balance of a design is important, it will helpto show it better. I did mention to Gravock that torque is important and by waiting, I will be better able to show thisspecific principle. In the mean time, it will be something for you guys to think about.

Jim

edited to add; to give you guys something to wrap your minds around, 2 opposing weights have equal lift / drop. One weight rotates around the axis of the wheel 90 degrees, one only 60 degrees yet both travel the same distance. The weight rotating 90 degrees would be moving 1.5 x's faster. Extra energy. And the better inertia can be nullified, the more potential that might be realized.

Hi magnamoro, thanks for sharing, very nice demonstration.Now we need to come up with a way to convert that to something .Maybe some magnets on both sides of a coil with a core or not and it will sweep by coil, back and forth in small movements, though we can use thick wire and step up the voltage to a useable level with some kind of boost circuit.peace love lighttyson

The answer, however, depends on what he is looking for, or which force value he is wishing to use.

By manipulating the forces within a system such as this it is possible to have a short moment within the system where the forces compound, or add together, this takes a small outside force to guide the normal interactions.

When using the "pull" force, in my past experiments, a dual mass system that has 2 counter rotating arms works best and is lightest on the parts, it is also better to have them express the force on a common component, IE a steel ring that both masses are running around the inside of, using bearings as the contact and the steel ring as the point of output, and then you need to limit the motion to a small part of the natural motion the system would have.

IIRC 2 5lbs masses on 12 inch arms rotating at 1200 RPM would generate over 2000lbs of force with a natural motion of close to 2 inches, limit this to 1\2 inch and the system is almost fully conservative but will supply 2000lbs over 100 FT per minute, or 200,000 lbs\ft per minute. One HP is 33,000 lbs\ft per minute.

I have not tried the acceleration part too much so am not sure what works better yet, however I have noticed that the input stroke length decreases with RPM, torque output to input increases with a smaller mass on a longer arm as compared to a larger mass on a shorter arm. Simple tests I have done show me no real numbers as of yet but when I take a mass 10x or more the size of the other mass I am playing with but on a 5 inch arm I can bring it up to approx. the same RPM as the smaller mass on an 11.5 inch arm and stop it with my finger rubbing on a gear really quick and easy, not so with the smaller mass on the longer arm which also "feels" like it takes less input. I have also seen that I can use a spring to assist in storing and returning some of the force so that the input force from me goes down, in this case I "help" the arm compress the spring at the right moment and then I have the spring "help" me change the angles of interaction to accelerate the mass,again at the right moment.

Does he want to make a drive force thing out of it? you can do that as well, the trick to that one is that you need to waste a bunch of force and put it back in in the correct orientation for both of these events.

Webby1, I was wondering if he had 2 weights that were not opposite of each other but similar to a gyro (165 degrees?). One thing about it is I thinkthe axle of the wheel would need to be off set. What do you think ?

@MoRo and Webby1, A quick drawing about off sets. The wheel isn't, but think of an oil darick. A weight could be placed at location A, on the wheel or both to work withthe counter weight. One of the things about it is the pivot on the wheel would come up beneaththe bike/cross beam. One thought is if the wheel rotates clock wise, then before it is to top center, A would be wanting to drop and most of the accelerationof the wheel would be side ways at first, then downwards. Not sure if it would change things much, but thought I'd see what you guys think.

JimHere is a simple "centrifugal accelerator" . It enables to utilize centrifugal forces of rotating freewheel and convert them to additional rpms... Beam with pivots and lever on rotates separately and free on axle. Two arms lever system is separated from the wheel to prevent any influence on it.If it is possible to utilise centrifugal/-petal forces this wheel should accelerate when rotating. But I don't think so...